About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Punctuation 1, David Pillpa 1, Mr. St. Croix 1, Sec 1, The City 1, Studley 1, Ammiano 1, Lui 1, Mr. Pilpa 1, Mr. Pillpa 1, David Pilpel 1, Subsection 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 17, 2012
    3:00 - 3:30pm PST  

3:00pm
to run. so we're not capturing that activity. >> what if it's a really nice dinner? >> and they got contributions from others towards? >> then we want to know. >> then we want to know about that. >> and the public wants to know about that. >> is that a public action? >> no. i don't think so. >> right. it would fall under a draft committee. that would be a draft committee. >> it just wouldn't support, -- publication support a candidate essentially? >> i think once you start collecting contributions, as a public action. so if they are at this private dinner and you start collecting contributions for a run at an elective office, i think it's a public action. or it could translate into this. because state law says once you raise $1,000 or more, you effectively become a committee. >> you just have to function
3:01pm
in public. >> well, i do feel like the way this reads right now, that if i collected $1,000 from five friends, which i was told to use to try to convince somebody to run for elective office, and i spent that money by taking them out to -- entertaining them for an evening, that this would not be covered. that would not be covered about i this. i don't know if we're intending to know about that kind of of activity nort. but i don't think we're intending to cover that. . >> in that situation you are not spending money to convince the voters. >> true. >> so i think leaving out the word "public" is okay. >> okay.
3:02pm
any other comments from commissioners on decision point 1? public comment? >> david pillpa. i'm trying to kind of work through this language, including the top of page 2, lines 1-4. sorry, it's giving me a headache. i would suggest a few points. on line 17 and 18, i would reword it slightly to say, "in order to support the qualification of an identifiable person for city elective office." because that presumes that that person has not yet qualified, and that the purpose of the endeavor is to have them be a qualified candidate.
3:03pm
it's not to support the election of the that person. it's really more about getting them to be a qualified candidate and i'm actually thinking less about the draft someone over the summer or draft someone as a written that actually happened in 1999 in ammiano for mayor. i recall some of that, but try not to recall all of it this sec. you could have the same efforts that happened with "run he had run," and progress for all," in the context of a write-in campaign and i'm not sure under this definition it would get captured. that is why i'm hung up on
3:04pm
qualification versus election. >> may i ask you a question about that? >> sure. >> it's not clear to me why that is materially different from what we have? >> well, again it's not necessarily the election of a person. that is not necessarily the goal of the committee or the committee would assert that is not their goal. it's to get them to run and, in fact you might have a committee whose goal is to get someone on the ballot, not to get them elected, but to get them on the ballot to drain votes away from someone else as to help someone else's chances of getting elected that the whole thing is a big trick. you know? we're all operating in good faith in this room, but there are others outside of this room that may not be or may or may not be watch this. >> what was the language?
3:05pm
>> i think it makes it more parallel to no. 1 [#2*-/]. >> instead of the word "qualification," i would use "candidacy." >> i'm not sure if "candidacy" encompasses write-in or not? >> i don't like terminating the end of that sentence. >> presumably someone who has qualified -- that is the point i wanted to make more globally. the problem is the state law definition of "candidate." we can add this section in local law, which is fine and whatever version ends up tonight or
3:06pm
thereafter will work for the moment. but i think we should urge the state legislature to include an appointed office-holder, because that was the route of this to begin with. >> that we definitely can't do tonight? >> no, it's not on the calendar, but something that we could contemplate in future and i would suspect there is support for that. >> do you have other comments about what we can do here and now? >> sorry. thank you for bringing me back. i agree that the language in lines 19 and 20 are somewhat problematic. i don't know that they work into line 16-18. i think they really only apply in subsection b. i mean it's difficult to read 16-18 and imports 19 and 20 in,
3:07pm
that the "order to support" language. it just gets a little circular, but i do agree that support should include actions or statements whether public or non-public. that are trying to urge or encourage a particular outcome. i think that is the point of "support." and i'm also trying to think through if you have got a committee under state law that you have a primarily formed committee. i know. right. that this is creating a new animal only under scintilla, but is requiring that animal to file reports. all right, i will just keep thinking about it.
3:08pm
if we haven't figured out the definitions we should try to get that right. it's dangerous to have a definition here that is complicated and interconnected and say that the commission may further adopt presto clarify this. i think we should get it right and not rely on having to go back later and define by regwhere we already have a definition that is intended to be comprehensive. >> because we so seldom try to do things right the first time? >> we should try. i'm being supportive. i will shut up for a while. >> i think commissioner studley is correct that the issue of the words "qualification," will make it more parallel to decision point 2. line 18.
3:09pm
>> so we're going to say in order to support the qualification or election of an identifiable person, the city elective office who is not qualified as a candidate? >> yes. >> and are we going to add that parallel language to support as well? >> no. >> we don't think we need that. >> i think that is probably right. at that point it becomes redundant. i'm okay with that. >> could somebody just explain why? i thought that the change to no. 2 was your thoughts about write-ins? that sometimes the pathway through might be not to encourage or urge to declare as a candidate, but that a well-funded write-in effort would not be committee
3:10pm
or campaign because there was not a candidate. >> you are addressing me? >> yes. i was trying to figure out that particular hypothetical? >> i think that the qualification and/or election takes care of that. i don't know that it matters whether you put it in line 16-18 or 19-20. you probably don't need it in both. i mean, i wonder whether you need the definition of "support" at all, if you have added "qualification," to line 16 through 18. i don't feel strongly about. mr. st. croix? i think mr. pillpa's point that if you read
3:11pm
in what we defined as "support," into it and replace it, it starts to sound fairly redundant. >> well, if i might? i think where i'm having the most trouble now and we're into subsection b for a second. on line 7. that you can have a circumstance where a primarily formed committee perhaps is only filing semiannual reports and not pre-election reports, but in the instance where that primarily formed committee supports a candidate and using the language "support [o-eufpblts/] ," going to the definition here. i think you are trying to get in that instance a primarily formed committee.
3:12pm
>> the reason leaving it in is not redundant, they are going to try to self-define, if they want to get around this provision. >> right. >> so i want them, if they say, we're not raising money to elect him or her, we're just raising money to encourage them. that is covered. we say we are not supporting their election. we are only supporting their candidacy. we might be absurd, but we have had absurd claims before. i don't want them to try to self-define their way out of these requirements. >> don't you review your definition of "support" as being all-inclusive? >> yes. >> that is why i tend to agree
3:13pm
with the idea that we shouldn't eliminate the definition of "support." if we believe that that language is all-in[khrao-ups/]ive and it seems to be it is. >> i'm fining leaving it with it is provided the amendment in line 18 to support qualification or election of an identifiable person. does anybody have objection to that? is there a motion to adopt decision point 1 as amended? >> so moved. >> second. >> can you just clarify what would lines 19 and 20 read, just as written? exactly as written? >> as written.
3:14pm
>> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? that passes. decision point 2. any comments from commissioners? public comment? >> i'm sorry we were just having a fun little side bar over there. i guess the problem on page 2 lines 1 through 7 is that there
3:15pm
aren't sufficient -- what is the word? comments. >> there aren't sufficient what? >> commas, punctuation. >> okay. >> to read that and try to interpret it and you know we all try to do statutory construction here, but others outside might look at it other ways. >> can you just tell me where you would want to put commas? >> although, i hate it maybe in the case, the passive voice might be better. so campaign finance-related filings reports or statements shall be filed by either a draft committee, or
3:16pm
-- i mean, it's just hard to read what that means for primarily formed committees supporting a candidate seeking the city elective office for which the draft committee is supporting an identifiable person. i really like what we're doing here. i'm just having trouble figuring out what that means. is it that they are filing for a candidate? are they filing for the committee? i'm sorry, i am just having trouble with the language. >> that is the problem with existing law. there is no candidate. therefore, there is no campaign. and we have to identify what that is, because the entities don't exist in current law. >> sorry. if i may, is the intent to say that draft committees are
3:17pm
subject to the same filing requirements is that the same intent? >> yes. >> i was going to suggest language like that. >> does it need to say "draft committees that are supporting an identifiable person?" >> no, because that is the definition of the draft committee. >> well, it is here. i think commissioner lui's suggestion makes sense draft committees shall file the same campaign finance-related filings reports or statements as for or required to be filed by a primarily formed committee. >> right. >> can i just suggest that we cut it -- we use the same language that we have, but on line 3, stop it after "city
3:18pm
elective office?" >> yes. >> i like it. can someone read it again as proposed? >> draft committees shall file any campaign-related filings reports or statements required by either state or local law for a primarily formed committee supporting a candidate seeking the city elective office. or seeking city elective office would be sufficient and take out the "the." >> i thought we had the word "same" in there. >> that would be fine. those three changes. >> so draft committees shall
3:19pm
file the same campaign finance-related filings -- by either state or local law for a primarily formed campaign for a candidate seeking, et cetera. >> i think we're all concerned that you address primarily formed committees in the same cycle. so actually i would suggest saying draft committees shall file any campaign finance-related filings, reports or statements require bed featherstitch required by state or local law, et cetera.
3:20pm
the only change inserting owe same." >> i don't know how that supports the cycle argument. >> you have related filings as opposed to semiannual filings. >> okay. so basically we want any draft committee that is operating to support a candidate for say the mayor's office, to file in the same manner as any other primarily formed committees. that is actually in operation for a declared candidate for the mayor's office. now it's possible, although i honestly don't know how often it happens they could have a primarily formed committee laying around from an election last year. maybe that doesn't need to file
3:21pm
anything this year pause it's not supporting a candidate in this election. >> we'll is a dress that in the regs. i don't think we need to worry about that here >> i have no objection to them. >> that it should be for the same office. >> i think that is fine. anybody have an objection to that? okay. can i ask you did you have any concerns about our definition of draft committee in support?
3:22pm
>> yeah, i think, not to necessary re-open the issue, i think mr. pilpa's concern was subsection 1 refers to qualification or election. in subsection 2, if we just leave it alone, only refers to declarations of candidates and those are potentially distinct actions or things, but i mean i don't have a strong feeling that we need to revisit that. >> okay. i don't either. >> that is to the commissions
3:23pm
' discretion. >> do the commissioners have any objection to decision point 2? is there a motion to adopt decision point 2 as amended? >> how is it amended? what is the language? it was as mr. shen just stated >> is there a motion to auto prove decision point 2 as amended. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? okay that passes. >> can i just suggest one
3:24pm
minor clarification, if you don't want to do it, i can understand on line 6. where it says, "for city elective office, the committee shall continue to file." might you insert so it says, "the draft committee," so it's specific referring to the draft committee. >> i think it's clear. we used it six words previous? >> all right. >> i will make the offer for a short break once again. commissioners are we okay to go forward, do you want a few minutes? carry on. the next item on the agenda is the performance evaluation for director st. croix.
3:25pm
public comment on matters pertaining to agenda item 5? >> i support the good work that the director is doing and i hope that you will find similarly in closed session. i do think it's work having periodic or annual performance evaluations, including setting goals and reviewing the performance of our employee and ensuring that his goals and yours are aligned and progressing. thanks. >> the commission typically discusses the evaluation of the executive director in closed session. is there a motion to hold the meeting in closed session under government code section section 54957b and sunshine ordinance
3:26pm
6.10b? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, we will deliberate regarding the performance of the executive director in closed session. >> whether to disclose any portion of the closed session, discussed during the executive director's performance evaluation. is there a motion not to disclose the ethic's commission closed session deliberations regarding the performance
3:27pm
evaluation of mr. st. croix. >> so moved. >> second. >> public comment? no public comment, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? there is none, so the motion passes. before we move on to the next agenda item, i do want to commend the executive director for his excellent performance this year. we had some trying issues come up and i think we had some real breakthroughs as well in terms of legislation and work we have been really trying to get done. and i think it's a testament to his leadership. and i think we have all benefited from his great work and the great work of the staff that works with him. we know that you all have a lot to do and you do it extremely well, and you were asked to do things this year that i'm sure you did not expect to have to do when the year began.
3:28pm
and to a person, we are very grateful. he wouldn't be nearly as good as he is without you. >> amen. >> and we know you guys are doing all the work, so really the credit goes to you guys and please express our appreciation to the rest of the staff. the next item on the agenda, discussion and possible action on minutes of the commission's regular meeting of october [#2-erbgs/] 2012. any comments from commissioners? public comment? >> david pilpel, i think there are four points on the minutes somehow could indicate that mr.
3:29pm
miss hari participated by phone and i didn't find that. on page 5, in bold i the motion moved, seconded and passed, second line. this was really funny, find that miss st. croix and miss st. croix -- i wasn't aware, but you might want to amend and the following line, i think that is just a wfl failure to comply with the sunshine ordinance and strike "task force" there. and finally on page 6 in bold the motion, that the ethics commission adopt the annual report

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)